Mcu Critical - Blog Posts
Magneto is JEWISH. He is a Jewish character. The original version of the story the new X-Men 97 season is trying to tell relied on him being snapped out his plan by a young Jewish girl being hurt (I actually posted about how much I love this story beat last year). A young Jewish girl he later attends a meeting of Holocaust survivors with. Telling this story without using the word “Holocaust” or “Jewish” is so very telling. And it’s not a one off with this show— Roberto is an Afro-Brazilian character who manifested his powers because of a hate crime and they changed his origin completely.
Disney will ALWAYS shy away from these issues. They will ALWAYS want the kudos from having minority characters while sanitizing their stories. Really think about what it means for them to do this to characters like Sunspot and Magneto, but stand their ground when it comes to keeping the Israeli propaganda character in upcoming Cap movie.
I'm thinking in terms of actual real life experiences I've had when I say this, but I'd imagine part of what makes being a Thor enjoyer so frustrating in 2024/MCU's phase 4+ era is that... you're effectively not allowed to enjoy your favorite superhero.
I once had a conversation with a close friend of mine during a casual outing, and without going into very many details, this particular person is an enjoyer of Ragnarok, and enjoys Tailka's work overall. Now, I should say right off the bat: there is nothing wrong with these opinions. Everyone is entitled to like what they like and enjoy the work of creators just the same as other people are allowed to dislike them. For this particular post, I'm not here to get into fandom wars or "reasons why taika waititi is a terrible director" beef. I have other posts in line for that. But what I will say is that I already knew this about my friend, so it never surprised me when the topic of Thor came up that it would be a point of disagreement.
The issue I've found that continues to circle in the general space of "being a Thor fan" came when I expressed that I don't like Ragnarok, I do think Thor was funnier (and just better overall) before Ragnarok and therefore Taika's involvement, and quite frankly Taika had very little business taking on the mantle of director of a superhero franchise he has never liked or understood in his life just because he had mouths to feed. (There are other opportunities to fulfill that. And filmmakers know going into this industry that it's all gig-based and - if they're smart anyways - work around that.) I hadn't even gotten a chance to go through all of the reasons WHY I feel that way, of which I have had before compiled an organized list of about 16 talking points off the top of my head, so as far as that particular discussion goes... it didn't go anywhere. We were busy at the time.
But namely what I want to talk about is this:
The response I was given, in summary, was something along the lines of "well I think Thor was boring, and he wasn't my cup of tea, so I'm glad he changed."
But, you see, there's just ONE small issue with that: Thor isn't meant for everyone.
In fact, no character is meant for everyone. So why is it that Thor needs to change to be "for everyone" and be the MCU normies' "cup of tea" when no other character has to? Why does he need to lose his core identity (both as a character, as a franchise, you name it, it's been done) just because people like my friend don't understand him as well as Tony Stark or Spider-Man? And why should Thor fans have tow watch their favorite superhero get stripped down and turned into something completely divorced from the character, world and cast we were first involved with from the beginning?
Nobody at any point has been able to answer me that besides "well just because I didn't like Thor personally."
Iron Man won't appeal to everyone. Neither does Captain America, neither does Spider-Man, beloved as even Spidey is. They have their own quirks, their own villains, their own storylines... Every superhero has a core to them that their stories revolve around. He's from DC, but Superman, for instance, has the core of: love, justice and the American Way. Therefore, his stories revolve around challenging that core, and making Superman prove it. Steve Rogers/Captain America has a similar core. Justice, freedom and the American Way, is what I'd mostly boil his core down to. Thor's is "love" all around. I've written about that '(here)' in my post about his 2011 themes. Maybe it's different for other fans, but for me personally? I adore that about Thor. It's one of the many reasons I'm drawn to him over any other marvel Super besides Spider-Man. (not you tom holland ... yes you andrew garfield...)
So when I go to Thor for entertainment, I'm going to him above the other superheros because I want a story that revolves around HIS core and how Thor goes about reckoning with his challenges. I also go to MCU Thor specifically for his quiet, kind, regal nature. I come to him for his gravitas, his passion, his relationships with his cast of companions.
I go to him for high-sci-fi action/adventure, or for the "what if we took norse mythology and made it an alien superhero" route they took him in for the MCU. I go to Thor because he IS different from the rest of the Avengers... and that's the point.
So when someone says to me: "Well Thor wasn't for me so I'm glad he changed", or "Well I really liked Ragnarok because Thor kind of become more in line with the other Avengers"... they're fundamentally missing the point of why Thor has a fanbase at all.
The way that the message of Thunderbolts* is that to get through depression and past traumas you need to reach out and rely on your support system and the whole time Bucky is separate from his and by the end there's a wedge between him and Sam.
I don't know how you can be a Bucky stan and approve of that pcs in Thunderbolts*.
I love Bucky and that scene gutted me.
How are we supposed to believe that:
The Bucky who spent what seems like his entire career in Congress trying to put together the evidence to bring down Valentina would then turn around and work for her? For 14 months?! After what she tried to do to Wakanda?! After he makes a point of telling Mel early in the film that he never had a choice who he worked for but she does? This is the choice we're supposed to believe he would make?
The Bucky who dropped everything to go to Sam when Joaquín was injured in Brave New World, who told Sam that him being Captain America gave people something to aspire to, who knew that Ross had charged Sam with rebuilding the Avengers, wouldn't be at Sam's side as he built that team?
The Bucky who is canonically best friends with Sam (at minimum), who can comfortably tell him he loves him, would allow him to be spoken of the way they talked about him in that pcs? That he would just stand by and allow them to suggest that Sam's the one at fault, that Sam's the one being unreasonable, that Sam should recognize that the Thunderbolts are the legitimate Avengers because the government (?? is Valentina the government now) said so?
This isn't Bucky. This isn't where he's at in his arc by Brave New World. I'm so upset that this is the direction the writers took him (and if it was the Russos who shot this scene, what this means for how they're going to treat the character in Doomsday).
I am also absolutely gutted about how they treated Sam in that pcs, but I haven't seen any positive takes from Sam fans - the consensus (I think) is that that scene was horrible and it's going to have so many repercussions outside the MCU. I am seeing posts from Bucky fans cheering about Bucky's new 'found family' or suggesting that people upset about the pcs are exaggerating and...that is not how I feel right now.
I have some THOUGHTS. ⚡
Well, I have preemptively salted on this movie for so long now, that I'm betting at least some of you are curious to know my opinion on Thunderbolts* by now. Specifically Bucky's role in it.
Disclaimer, I have not actually watched the movie and I have absolutely zero plans to go to the theaters and spend money on it, but I have read several plot summaries for it and seen many spoilers. So I do know about 90% of what happens in it, and my opinion is solely based on that. And let me tell you, it's a strong one.
Spoilers ahead, if anyone cares.
Bucky is not a "NeW aVenGeR".
Because he already was an actual Avenger.
Because he already was working with Captain America and already had done heroic acts working beside him.
He was referred to as an Avenger onscreen, by Walker no less.
This movie refuses to acknowledge any of that.
You can throw all the technicalities you want at me, you can hit me with all the "Uhm, but aCTUALLY..."s that you want.
The truth is this movie takes away so much of what Bucky had already worked so hard to achieve. Including a stable and reliable friendship with Sam Wilson, a clear name, a newfound purpose...
But most importantly, they took away one my man's most defining traits, and one of the biggest reasons why I fell in love with Bucky in the first place: his loyalty.
The man who showed up for Sam Wilson time and time again (especially when he needed emotional support after his protegé was in critical condition), the man who reassured him, the man who was visibly, personally offended when his late friend's shield, title, and legacy was handed by the government to someone who hadn't earned it, the man who fought to give it back to the person Steve had actually trusted with it because he believed only he could carry that legacy with the respect that it deserved...
I refuse to believe that's the same man who tried to talk Sam into just "letting them" use the title of the Avengers, despite knowing damn well why Sam would be opposed to letting the likes of Valentina and the government in general just appropiate it so thoughtlessly. Or heck, even the same man who would just hear Alexei casually insult his best friend and just say nothing??? Like what have they done to him, that's not the Bucky I know!!!
I can and will only accept that ending if they confirm that Sam and Bucky are actually secretly working together to outsmart that woman, and have to keep up appearances in the meantime and pretend to be in a tiff. Otherwise, it does not make sense for either of them and just character-assassinates my fav.
From what I'm seeing and hearing, this movie probably should've just been Black Widow 2 and focus on Yelena and Alexei helping out Bob. Those three seem to be who the movie cares the most about anyway. It's certainly not Antonia. 🙄 (That's my second biggest gripe with this film by the way, I get that she wasn't the most popular character, but that was straight up NASTY of them)
So there may be many good things about this movie. But unfortunately, they decided to rope my favorite character into it in a way that ignores most of what was so great and inspiring about his character arc so far. And they also chose to shamelessly insult and undermine my second favorite character and paint him as a petty bully (which is very OOC for him I might add). And they also chose to do all of this with a cheeky little "LOL we're the New Avengerz now 🤪" attitude and publicity campaign.
And for that alone, they could never make me like this movie.
who was right in civil war enlightened one what was justified and what wasn’t
(Note: I wrote this in 40 minutes after getting out of urgentcare because I am a madlad. If there are any misspellings, discrepancies, or plot errors, I apologize in advance.)
So the biggest problem with identifying who is actually wrong in Civil War is that the script is kinda...bad.
Okay, listen.
The dialogue is pretty fantastic and everyone is in character. (For the most part.) But the conflict is mediocre at best and there are like five different storylines going at once that are supposed to parallel each other but do a really shoddy job of it.
I can't really say who was right, but I can for sure say who's side I would have been on.
Tony Stark's.
(I promise this isn't just because he's my favorite.)
So there are two main storylines that involve Tony Stark. Plot A) the Accords, and B) Bucky's whole thing. These two plotlines intertwine at certain intervals, especially the ending, but let's put a pin in that. Let's talk about the Accords first.
This is where a lot of the bad writing comes in. If you go to the MCU Wiki, it cites regulations such as wearing tracking bracelets and being thrown into prison without a trial. Here's the thing though...in CA:CW they don't mention any of these regulations even once. There is half the Avengers being thrown into the raft (which Tony breaks them out of), but the movie doesn't once cite a single regulation beyond the fact that 117 countries are trying to keep superheroes with potentially dangerous powers in check.
If they really wanted me to side with Steve on this one, they would have at least thrown something in there. At most, they just bring Thaddus Ross on screen as a kind of shorthand to prove that the Accords are corrupt, but this doesn't really hold any weight for someone who hasn't seen The Hulk or read the comics.
So the only argument they've got going is government bad=Accords bad, which...fair enough. But this movie is placed literally directly after Age of Ultron (which is another nightmare of a movie script), where it is firmly established that the Avengers making decisions on their own, without input from any higher officials, is historically a bad move.
Actually, let's back up, let's talk about the Avengers.
I don't really understand why they're still a thing after S.H.I.E.L.D. was disbanded. They aren't owned by any organization, they don't work for any organization, and they're not affiliated with any official government. Which means they can be viewed as vigilantes or terrorists, depending on how badly they botch up a mission. And considering how amazingly well Age of Ultron goes, I'm honestly not surprised that the United Nations wanted to put restrictions on them.
So -much to my chagrin-I'm actually on the government's side here.
What about the Avengers as a team?
Okay, so you have a Billionaire supergenius, a soldier from WWII with superpowers, two ex-S.H.E.I.L.D. agents, an Alien who sometimes shows up, and a scientist who turns into an uncontrollable rage creature. Adding onto that, they recruit two military veterans, a sentient robot, and the ex-nazi responsible for their last fuck-up.
If we take a look at their actual team dynamics, we have a group of people who are already split down the middle. Half the team is looking to Steve Rogers for leadership and the other half is trusting Tony Stark. These two men not only do not get along, but they don't get along to the extent that it affects how they work in a crisis. On top of this, said ex-nazi hates Tony Stark so hard that it- again- destroys an entire city and they decide to put her on the same team.
The Avengers have only had one successful onscreen mission (Avengers 2012) and that was more down to sheer luck than actually being capable of working together and carrying out a mission. They mention other missions they've been on at the beginning of Age of Ultron, but it's also noted that the collateral damage they've left in their wake was what spurred the UN into creating the Accords.
Not a great team.
So when people chalk Steve's entire argument down to the safest hands are our own, are they actually right? Should the world be entrusting their lives unquestionably in a team whose members should have been in therapy 6 movies ago (except for Rhodey and Sam, they get a pass).
Yeah hard pass, to be honest, I would have retired the team and restarted from scratch even before putting the Accords on the table. Which is why I am entirely on Tony's side because he is the more accountable between him and Steve. He tried it Steve's way in Age of Ultron, and it ultimately failed (that's another meta post for a different time). So now he's trying to keep the team together within the parameters that 117 different governments are clamoring for.
So my opinion on who was right? I lean more onto Tony's side.
Now what was justified?
Steve was justified in helping Bucky. I absolutely do not condone some of the things he did to protect him, but I can understand trying to help your best friend. It's a choice that I would make. I'm not one for saying the end justifies the means, but it's clear that Bucky was in trouble and that turning him in was a bad move. This is the one choice Steve made in Civil War that I absolutely approve of.
Tony was justified in his anger at Steve and Bucky and Bucky was not at fault for the death of Tony's parents. These two statements can and should coexist. I see a lot of people flipping out over Tony's reaction, but honestly? He's 100% justified. He just watched an incredibly traumatic tape of his mother dying with her murderer standing next to him. But that ain't what it was all about.
That's what this is about. Steve was the last person Tony could have even comprehended lying to him about something like this. It wasn't about whether or not Bucky was the killer (although that had to be upsetting). It was about Steve breaking his trust. His reaction is absolutely understandable and completely justified with this in mind.
Now what wasn't justified?
Every scene with Wanda in it, Sam putting blame on Tony for the raft situation, and Steve's worst apology ever letter. I could literally write separate metas on each of these, so all I'm gonna say is the narrative used Tony as a cope out to cause problems for other people. All of Wanda's problems (sans her parents' death, which actually wasn't Tony's fault) are caused by her own doing. All of Sam's problems were caused by his own doing. And Steve's letter was the shittiest apology I've ever read and makes me turn into a rage monster every time I think about it.
None of those things we're justified and I sigh every time I think about them.
Anyway, long story short, this movie is a dumpster fire trainwreck that either needed to go through several more drafts or should've just been tossed in the bin. Tony's motivations are far more reasonable and sympathetic, and I'm still mad at them for putting him and Bucky on opposite sides.
(Please feel free to shoot me more questions or to disagree. I love talking meta/analysis with others, and would be thrilled to hear y'all's opinions.)
The problem with how Marvel is handling the Maximoff twins is that they shot themselfs in the foot.
They have a lot of projects planned do release at certain times in a certain order.
They already started doing the team up to Young Avengers so they need Wiccan rigth now. They can not do a time jump because the others are teenagers now. So they had to kill Billy Kaplan and make Billy Maximoff's soul jump in his body.
Marvel's problem was timing they introduced Billy too late and the other Young Avengers too soon. They were scared that the public would forget them if they stopped doing Avengers for a second